Monday, July 16, 2012

Three Ontario Superior Court of Justice cases reported over the past two years, confirm what I had suspected as a consequence of practicing family law for close to 20 years:

Those who earn money in the antique business and fail to report that income, or consistently show business losses, stand a fairly good chance of either avoiding paying full support to their former spouses, or unfairly receiving support.

Just over a year ago I reported the case of Hewitt v. Hewitt, about a husband who had been an auction assistant, a garage sale operator and a picker for antique stores and auctions. At trial his evidence was deliberately obtuse and he was evasive and deceptive. The judge found that he only sporadically, and then inaccurately, reported his income to the tax authorities. The court could not get an accurate handle on what Mr. Hewitt was actually earning. The judge imputed income to Mr. Hewitt for support calculation purposes, of only $20,000 a year, total income before deductions for tax and sundry reductions.

Mr. Hewitt’s wife was ordered to pay him spousal support of $900 per month. At that time I suggested that Mr. Hewitt was being rewarded for his lies, deception and failing to report income. Since then I have come across two other Ontario cases which further indicate to me that the courts are not prepared to delve too deeply into the income earning of people in the antique business, and simply assume that the profits cannot be all that great (i.e.” If he’s not declaring income, then how can he really be earning that much money?”)

In Fyfe v. Jouppien, the husband claimed entitlement to interim support from the wife, at least pending trial of the matrimonial proceeding. Motions for interim support are generally based on affidavit evidence, and only at trial do witnesses take the stand when the full picture emerges.

At the motion for interim support Ms. Fyfe wanted to prove that Mr. Jouppien was earning money from appraising antiques and historical buildings, which he was not reporting to Canada Revenue Agency. She attached evidence (exhibits) to her affidavit, including the following:

An article from the Welland Tribune website which indicated that Mr. Jouppien was appraising antiques

A printout from the Welland Tribune website which indicated that he was providing expert appraisals at the Port Colborne Historical and Marine Museum and that he was a member of the Appraisers Guild of Ontario

A printout from the website for Niagara This Week which indicated that he was appraising antiques at a museum in Thorold

Although Mr. Jouppien addressed other allegations against him regarding earning income, he did not reply to the allegations of making money carrying out appraisals of historical items. His lawyer told the court that any money earned from this type of undertaking would be so minor as to not be worthy of note.

The judge stated that although he may be earning more income than what had been declared (his disability benefits of $7,120 annually), “a motion is not the arena in which to make difficult decisions about credibility, and in any event there is insufficient evidence before the court upon which to impute income to him.” Generally speaking, motions are very important proceedings because most cases settle before trial, often based on something close to what motions court judges have decided.

In Elcich v. Olecka, Mr. Elcich wanted to terminate a support order made in 2002. The order provided that he could not apply to change support until after December 1, 2007. In 2008, Mr. Elcich retired from General Motors on a $40,000 per year pension. At the time of the hearing Mr. Elcich was 61. Ms. Olecka was 49 and employed as a cook, earning $34, 358 per year. At some point her income was reduced and she had supplementary income from employment insurance.

Mr. Elcich alleged that Ms. Olecka had income from an antique business. Ms. Olecka stated she had been losing money in the business for many years, and that her tax returns confirmed it. In fairness, she alleged extra income earned by Mr. Elcich as well. But the point is that the judge stated that total income from these additional sources (i.e. the antique business which supposedly was a losing proposition for several consecutive years … at least on paper), “in any, is negligible and as a result the court discounts such income entirely.” The judge ordered Mr. Elcich to continue paying unreduced spousal support for a further two years. Who keeps carrying on business, year after year, all along truly losing money?

The conclusions which can be drawn from these cases are:

In order to prove that your ex is earning a reasonable or any income from the antique business, you require extremely compelling evidence

It’s doubtful that the evidence will come to light except at a trial
Even after a trial, it’s unlikely that a judge will attribute or impute the true level of income earned from the antique business

If your marriage is on the rocks, and you’re in the antique business, consider staying in it.

- Alvin Starkman, Oaxaca, Mexico

Alvin Starkman received his Masters in Social Anthropology in 1978. After teaching for a few years he attended Osgoode Hall Law School, thereafter embarking upon a successful career as a litigator until 2004. Alvin, a good-standing member of the Law Society of Upper Canada, now resides with his wife Arlene in Oaxaca, Mexico, where he writes, leads small group tours to the villages, markets, ruins and other sights, is a consultant to documentary film production companies, and operates Casa Machaya Oaxaca Bed & Breakfast.

The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ordered National Money Mart Company to pay $30,000 in compensation to a former, one-year employee of the company who had been subjected to ongoing, serious sexual harassment by her workplace supervisor.

With the Ontario Court of Appeal's June 25, 2009 ruling in Slepenkova v. Ivanov, it is now clear that the nearly-universal pronouncements by management lawyers as to the death of Wallace damages after Honda and Keays may have been a bit premature.

In Slepenkova, the Ontario appellate court upheld a two-month notice extension for an employer's bad faith termination, even though no evidence was led at trial as to the specific damages the employee directly incurred as a result of the bad faith. This appeared to place the trial Judge's decision at odds with the new Wallace test set out in Honda.

About WISE LAW BLOG

Wise Law Blogfeatures timely articles on legal developments in Canada and the United States, along with commentary on Canadian politics, American politics, technology and noteworthy current affairs.

Launched on April 5, 2005, Wise Law Blog also highlights key decisions of Canadian courts, with focus on Ontario Family Law, Ontario Employment Law and other areas of interest.

Garry J. Wise is primary contributor to Wise Law Blog. He is a Canadian litigation lawyer who practices with Wise Law Office,Toronto. He is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School and was called to the Ontario Bar in 1986.

Garry's colleagues at Wise Law Office, as well as occasional guest bloggers, also contribute to Wise Law Blog.

Follow Us:

Follow by Email

Terms of Use

The articles and comments on Wise Law Blog are intended to provide general information on current issues and developments in the law. They are not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should not rely upon or act on information in this, or any blog without seeking legal advice as to the matters of specific concern to them. No solicitor and client relationship is created or can be created by accessing, reading or commenting upon any post at this site.

Wise Law Blog is not responsible for and does not necessarily agree with the contents of comments posted by readers of this blog. Such comments represent the personal views of the commenters only, and are included on this blog in the interest of promoting public discourse and a free exchange of ideas. We reserve the right to decline or delete any comment posted on this site which we, in our sole and absolute discretion, deem inappropriate for publication on this site.

CBC | Top Stories

CBC | Canadian News

CBC | Technology & Science News

MSNBC.com: Top MSNBC Headlines

BBC News | News Front Page | World Edition

Wise Law Blog, (c)2005-2010 Garry J. Wise and Wise Law Office, Toronto. All rights are reserved. Permission for reproduction and/or republication of any portion of this publication for solely non-commercial purposes is hereby granted provided any such non-commercial use shall include: (a) credit to the original author(s) thereof; (b) printable, embedded hyperlink to original Wise Law Blog post url. Reproduction and republication of any portion of this publication for commercial purposes is expressly prohibited without the permission in writing of the author(s).